Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


R v Richardson and Irvin

[1999] 1 Cr App R 392

Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 08:07 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Richardson and Irvin

 Ds and V were friends, had been drinking and were involving themselves in horseplay. Ds decided to drop V over a 10ft balcony, causing him injury. The judge directed that if a reasonable, sober man would have foreseen some harm then they were guilty. They were convicted of GBH. However CA upheld their appeal on the grounds that they ought to have been convicted if they themselves, when sober, would have foreseen the risk and therefore the convictions were quashed. Even though the trial judge misdirected on objective/subjective foresight, this surely ought not to have changed the outcome, unless the court saw something that implied that whereas a reasonable man might have foreseen some harm, these particular men would not. 

R v Richardson and Irvin crops up in following areas of law